It was subtle until I was directed on how to hear it from that test. I got 13/16 on it and that's with tinnitus. Now I fear I won't be able to unhear it if I spot it in my music collection D:
It was subtle until I was directed on how to hear it from that test. I got 13/16 on it and that's with tinnitus. Now I fear I won't be able to unhear it if I spot it in my music collection D:
There are other uses for watermarking audio. It would be blisteringly easy for advertisers to find out what music people listen to based on these watermarks and leverage that into a more expansive...
There are other uses for watermarking audio. It would be blisteringly easy for advertisers to find out what music people listen to based on these watermarks and leverage that into a more expansive profile:
During the 2015 Australian Open, KIA Motors Corporation leveraged audio watermarking in TV commercials aired during the tournament to connect directly with viewers’ mobile phones. During a commercial break, viewers were alerted to use KIA’s Game On app on their mobile to try to return the serve of the world’s fastest server, Sam Groth, delivered on screen. The connection between the television screen and the smartphone was achieved with audio watermarking.
Staff recently sent warning letters to app developers who had allowed third parties to install audio beacons in their apps, through software called Silverpush, without informing consumers who downloaded the apps. The software was capable of listening to a television being played near the consumer’s mobile device, and producing a detailed log of the television content viewed, for the purpose of targeted advertising and analytics.
In the most inconspicuous hustle of all, apps have increasingly incorporated ultrasonic tones to track consumers. They ask permission to access your smartphone microphone, then listen for inaudible "beacons" that emanate from retail stores, advertisements, and even websites. If you're not paying attention to the permissions you grant, you could be feeding marketers information about your online browsing, what stores you go to, and what products you like and dislike without ever realizing it.
Definitely hearing that easily. So l'm using a lossless audio stream(Tidal) for the crispiest, most crescent fresh audio, and they put this kind of stuff in? Is this for all songs or only specific...
Definitely hearing that easily. So l'm using a lossless audio stream(Tidal) for the crispiest, most crescent fresh audio, and they put this kind of stuff in?
Is this for all songs or only specific ones?
Edit: also, this article is from 2012: is this still up to date in 2020?
The article mentions Universal specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find other labels doing a similar thing with their catalogues. The only thing I have to ask is, what if you made a song...
The article mentions Universal specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find other labels doing a similar thing with their catalogues.
The only thing I have to ask is, what if you made a song that had a tremolo effect like that at the start of the song? Is there risk of a system like YouTube’s ContentID flagging the song you made as owned by Universal?
I mean people have had videos with nothing more than a bird chirping and been flagged by YouTube's ContentID. So yeah, there's a risk of that, but it has nothing to do with the watermark. It's...
I mean people have had videos with nothing more than a bird chirping and been flagged by YouTube's ContentID. So yeah, there's a risk of that, but it has nothing to do with the watermark. It's just because YouTube's ContentID is a dumpster fire.
Here's an excellent video by Tom Scott about that. Before watching it, I would have agreed with you, but there really is more going on than just YouTube having a bad ContentID system. They're...
YouTube's ContentID is a dumpster fire.
Here's an excellent video by Tom Scott about that. Before watching it, I would have agreed with you, but there really is more going on than just YouTube having a bad ContentID system. They're basically stuck between the community, copyright law, and a hard place.
None of what I'm talking about has anything to do with copyright law (though the video did a decent job of explaining it). As a music copyright holder myself, I understand many of the problems...
None of what I'm talking about has anything to do with copyright law (though the video did a decent job of explaining it). As a music copyright holder myself, I understand many of the problems with the current copyright system. That said, his criticism of just the ContentID system in that video is mainly what I'm talking about. He got a copyright takedown notice on his original content because someone else uploaded it and ContentID flagged it as belonging to the other uploader. It took months to sort out. That's what I'm talking about when I say that ContentID is a dumpster fire. It did the exact opposite of its intended purpose - it punished the copyright holder instead of the infringer. And it's not an isolated incident or a bug that needed to be fixed. It's mainly due to Google's insistence on never having a human being involved in processes that pretty much require human judgement and having no way to contact anyone who could look at the situation and realize it's a very obvious mistake.
Well, that's got some interesting implications. I'm surprised they found a way to do it, and it's amazing just how subtle this effect really is.
It was subtle until I was directed on how to hear it from that test. I got 13/16 on it and that's with tinnitus. Now I fear I won't be able to unhear it if I spot it in my music collection D:
There are other uses for watermarking audio. It would be blisteringly easy for advertisers to find out what music people listen to based on these watermarks and leverage that into a more expansive profile:
(source)
(source - PDF)
(source)
Definitely hearing that easily. So l'm using a lossless audio stream(Tidal) for the crispiest, most crescent fresh audio, and they put this kind of stuff in?
Is this for all songs or only specific ones?
Edit: also, this article is from 2012: is this still up to date in 2020?
http://www.mattmontag.com/music/an-update-on-umg-watermarks
Found this on the same site, seems it might be getting phased out.
The article mentions Universal specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find other labels doing a similar thing with their catalogues.
The only thing I have to ask is, what if you made a song that had a tremolo effect like that at the start of the song? Is there risk of a system like YouTube’s ContentID flagging the song you made as owned by Universal?
I mean people have had videos with nothing more than a bird chirping and been flagged by YouTube's ContentID. So yeah, there's a risk of that, but it has nothing to do with the watermark. It's just because YouTube's ContentID is a dumpster fire.
Here's an excellent video by Tom Scott about that. Before watching it, I would have agreed with you, but there really is more going on than just YouTube having a bad ContentID system. They're basically stuck between the community, copyright law, and a hard place.
None of what I'm talking about has anything to do with copyright law (though the video did a decent job of explaining it). As a music copyright holder myself, I understand many of the problems with the current copyright system. That said, his criticism of just the ContentID system in that video is mainly what I'm talking about. He got a copyright takedown notice on his original content because someone else uploaded it and ContentID flagged it as belonging to the other uploader. It took months to sort out. That's what I'm talking about when I say that ContentID is a dumpster fire. It did the exact opposite of its intended purpose - it punished the copyright holder instead of the infringer. And it's not an isolated incident or a bug that needed to be fixed. It's mainly due to Google's insistence on never having a human being involved in processes that pretty much require human judgement and having no way to contact anyone who could look at the situation and realize it's a very obvious mistake.
My only question is, what do the *labels* achieve by doing this? it seems nonsensical.